1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a user's interaction with an electronic security system and, more particularly, to a provision which provides the user the ability to interact with the alarm system via messaging on a cell phone or other device that receives and sends text messages.
A non-limiting example utilization of the invention includes but is not limited to the pre-verification of alarm signals. Such pre-verification of alarm signals shall, not only reduces the incoming alarm-signal traffic to a central alarm monitoring station but also, reduce false alarms, reduce costs and speeds up the response time of the authorities dispatched by the central alarm monitoring station.
A number of additional features and objects will be apparent in connection with the following discussion of the preferred embodiments and examples with reference to the drawings.
2. Prior Art
When a premise-protection alarm system trips, it not only begins to ring bells or sirens on the protected premise but it also immediately transmits an alarm signal to a central alarm monitoring station. Briefly, a premise-protecting alarm system comprises an alarm control panel housing a central processing unit (CPU) as well as other circuitry including one or more communications link(s) to the central alarm-monitoring station, a network of sensors reporting to the CPU, one or more communications link(s) to the central alarm-monitoring station, and a keypad for entering inputs such as high-level programming or basic commands like Arm, Disarm, Extend Schedules, Delete User Code and so on. The keypad may be mounted on a wall by a doorway, and remote from the control panel which might be hidden in a closet or the like.
As a matter of terminology, the ‘initiating’ cause which causes any of the numerous sensors to (in turn) cause the alarm system to trip is referred to as an “exception.” Not all exceptions are alarm events. Some are accidental trips.
It is typical for alarm systems to be configured such that, when an exception occurs (and an alarm trips), an alarm signal is transmitted to the central alarm-monitoring station without regard to the accuracy or appropriateness of the alarm signal itself. The central alarm monitoring station has a staff of operators, and one responsible operator (“central station operator”) seeks to call the premise to verify the alarm. If no one can be contacted there, the central station operator begins to call the “Call List” looking for an authorized person to either verify the alarm, or authorize the central alarm monitoring station to refrain from dispatching the authorities. If no contact is made, the central station operator will follow the pre-set policy of the central alarm monitoring station, which is most likely to dispatch the authorities. The preceding is what the central alarm monitoring station does without any specific knowledge of the initiating event.
So again, when an exception occurs (and the alarm trips), an alarm signal is transmitted to the central alarm monitoring station (and without regard to the accuracy or appropriateness of the alarm signal). The point of repeating the foregoing is that, there is no way for anybody responsible for the premise and/or alarm system therefor to know about the alarm until the alarm has been transmitted to central alarm monitoring station, and one of its central station operators there is trying to verify the alarm by a telephone call.
The central station operator begins by calling the hard-wired phones at the premise. If no one is there to answer, the central station operator proceeds to call numbers on the Call List. Who the central station operator is attempting to call may be referred to as a “Key Holder,” or anyone else from the list of people that the central alarm monitoring station has on its “Call List” for alarms from that premise.
The current prior-art practice only allows for the Key Holder (or other persons on the Call List) to be informed of an alarm—or interact with the alarm system—through the central station operator. In other words, the central station operator is the bridge between the protected premise's alarm system and the person answering the telephone call from the central station operator. This current state of matters proves to be time consuming, costly and cause delays or miss-communication which causes false alarms. It also proves to be expensive for all parties involved.
At the point of contact from the central alarm monitoring station, the operator will ask the person—who may or may not be aware of any such initial alarm—if there is an exception or difficulty or other issue that should cause the alarm to transmit. If the central alarm monitoring station cannot contact anyone because, say, the users of the system are not currently in the premise location, the central alarm monitoring station “assumes worst case” and dispatches the proper authorities. This pre-set policy of “assuming the worst case” in many instances results in a false dispatch, when, if the user could have been contacted, then the false dispatch could have been averted. In fact if the user could have been contacted BEFORE the alarm was sent to the central alarm monitoring station, then perhaps a false alarm could be averted more often than not.
What is needed is an improvement to overcome the foregoing shortcomings of the prior art.
Now to turn to another matter, currently, remote command of alarm systems is only available through expensive voice modules or software applications that run on computer systems connected through dial-up modems. The only way to remotely control an alarm control panel is by connecting up to the alarm control panel with one of these two means and then thereafter initiating functions of the alarm system. This process is cumbersome, inconvenient, and not conducive to the modern lifestyle which is so much on the go and has become treated to these days with so many portable conveniences.
What is needed is an improvement to overcome the shortcomings of the prior art in this matter as well.